[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

3 minutes ago, Barzon said:

What's the point of doing any HSF then? What can humans do that robots cannot do better?

Fair point. Not a huge amount if anything, certainly not per unit dollar.

I'd say the primary rationale for humans is inspirational, and I'm fine with spending money on that. Distant lunar orbit is not interesting in that regard. A geologist on the lunar surface for a week might cost WAY more than sending multiple rovers, but that geologist will none the less do a TON of useful science. Quite possibly more than a bunch of rovers might do in a year, even if in the long term the rovers could do as much or more for the same $ spent. From orbit there is literally nothing for an astronaut to do to study the Moon. They're not even going to be close, any observation of the Moon would be through camera systems that could just send the HD pics home, no astronaut required.

3 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

We can’t go anywhere more interesting if we can’t live on the moon. Period.

SLS will have nothing meaningful to do with a permanent human presence on the Moon, ever.

If you want that, you have to hope that SpaceX and Blue Origin succeed.

[RCgothic]

High Lunar Orbit is not by itself interesting for humans. It's a step away from LLO, which is a step away from a landing. Two steps away from interesting for humans.

Anything done in HLO or equivalent is simply makework as that's the only place SLS Orion can go.

If you're designing a rocket to conduct a lunar landing, you either make it capable enough to co-manifest a lander all in one launch, or you embrace rendezvous. SLS/Orion falls into this awkward middle way where it can't do an all up mission by itself and can't really serve as an earth departure stage for anything other than Orion either. It depends on rendezvous with smaller commercial partners (which weren't available at its inception, so it lucked out there), when it would have been more useful dedicated fully to large payload and earth departure for EOR than half to a mandatory capsule.

Worse, if your ultimate ambition is to go to Mars (as SLS has always been mentioned in tandem with since its inception), then SLS has very little to contribute to construction of a mothership. Flight cadence is just too low.

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by RCgothic

[tater]

5 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I’d use my new “Orange rocket bad” bingo board here but I know I’d win within a few hours so there’s no point.

I claim it's bad for a reason. My reason is that it was never designed to do a specific, useful mission. As a blank slate it might actually be OK, but we'd have to then kill Orion. You can have a useful SLS, or you can have Orion launched on SLS, you can't have both because Orion is too heavy, and doesn't have the propellants needed.

Minus Orion, you'd have 40-whatever tons to TLI for cargo, and then you could make a smaller capsule that you could send to meet that cargo. That or EOR with cargo+EUS, and use that, maybe. You'd still need Apollo like masses for the system to work via EOR, else you can have a larger lander and get the crew to LLO separately to meet your SLS launched cargo.

If you think it's a great vehicle, that's a claim, too. Demonstrate it, what can it do?

5 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

f you're designing a rocket to conduct a lunar landing, you either make it capable enough to co-manifest a lander all in one launch, or you embrace rendezvous. SLS/Orion falls into this awkward middle way where it can't do an all up mission by itself and can't really serve as an earth departure stage for anything other than Orion either. It depends on rendezvous with smaller commercial partners (which weren't available at its inception, so it lucked out there), when it would have been more useful dedicated fully to large payload and earth departure for EOR than half to a mandatory capsule.

Worse, if your ultimate ambition is to go to Mars (as SLS has always been mentioned in tandem with since its inception), then SLS has very little to contribute to construction of a mothership. Flight cadence is just too low.

100% true.

I have said before that they should have skipped Orion, and done SLS straight to full 8.4m fairing cargo (or 10m). Want a lunar program? Build something in LEO with that large lift, then send it. Cadence still kills SLS here, it would need better than Shuttle cadence unless they went to storable props. At least they could get large, fluffy things to LEO, though. You can push a Bigelow to LLO with just a full ACES, after all...

[ZooNamedGames]

2 hours ago, tater said:

I claim it's bad for a reason. My reason is that it was never designed to do a specific, useful mission. As a blank slate it might actually be OK, but we'd have to then kill Orion. You can have a useful SLS, or you can have Orion launched on SLS, you can't have both because Orion is too heavy, and doesn't have the propellants needed.

Minus Orion, you'd have 40-whatever tons to TLI for cargo, and then you could make a smaller capsule that you could send to meet that cargo. That or EOR with cargo+EUS, and use that, maybe. You'd still need Apollo like masses for the system to work via EOR, else you can have a larger lander and get the crew to LLO separately to meet your SLS launched cargo.

If you think it's a great vehicle, that's a claim, too. Demonstrate it, what can it do?

You know of another spacecraft that can fly crew to deep space by 2025? [snip]

Edited May 18, 2020 by Vanamonde

[tater]

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

You know of another spacecraft that can fly crew to deep space by 2025? 

For what mission? Be specific.

To be in a free return distantly around the Moon? For reasons?

What's the POINT?

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Vanamonde

[Scotius]

2 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

You know of another spacecraft that can fly crew to deep space by 2025? 

And then what? SLS\Orion is basically Apollo 2.0. Couple of missions launched on horrendously expensive, one-off rocket. You can't build semi-permanent Lunar base this way. You can't keep it alive year after year. SLS is a White Elephant - impressive, prestigious, few in numbers. And a huge drain of resources (money).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Vanamonde

[tater]

7 minutes ago, Scotius said:

And then what? SLS\Orion is basically Apollo 2.0. Couple of missions launched on horrendously expensive, one-off rocket.

Apollo was actually capable of completing the mission it was designed for. SLS/Orion can't even do Apollo 8's mission.

[ZooNamedGames]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

For what mission? Be specific.

To be in a free return distantly around the Moon? For reasons?

What's the POINT?

 

Ah your right. NASA can’t do anything with SLS- it’s not like they could build a version with a more powerful upper stage- they couldn’t ever do that!

20 minutes ago, Scotius said:

And then what? SLS\Orion is basically Apollo 2.0. Couple of missions launched on horrendously expensive, one-off rocket. You can't build semi-permanent Lunar base this way. You can't keep it alive year after year. SLS is a White Elephant - impressive, prestigious, few in numbers. And a huge drain of resources (money).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant

 

You say that but for a white elephant- it’s the only elephant in the room. No other rocket can do what SLS can do- within 5 years.

[tater]

11 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Ah your right. NASA can’t do anything with SLS- it’s not like they could build a version with a more powerful upper stage- they couldn’t ever do that!

Even with EUS they can’t do anything, Orion is too heavy.

[RCgothic]

So it gets a more powerful upper stage.

Now it can send Orion AND not a lander to TLI. Still no crew on the surface.

SLS Orion cannot do the job it was designed for.

 

If it weren't for Vulcan, New Glenn and Falcon Heavy, there would be no lunar landing in 2024 or 2025 or ever.

[Scotius]

10 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

You say that but for a white elephant- it’s the only elephant in the room. No other rocket can do what SLS can do- within 5 years.

Which does nothing to change the fact it is a dead end. Even if all built rockets complete their missions successfuly and on time () there is no future for SLS. It's too expensive to support long term exploration of the Moon. It's too underpowered and expensive for crewed Mars exploration.

[Flavio hc16]

9 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Ah your right. NASA can’t do anything with SLS- it’s not like they could build a version with a more powerful upper stage- they couldn’t ever do that!

And then? You need a better SM or to create a tug that you send behind the Orion and dock it mid flight apollo style, something that

A. You can hardly  do, especially with the time restriction ( before 2025)

B. If you can do it, the FH or NG make way more sense both for economics and flexibilities sake.

If you say yes to any of those 2 you are hypocritical considering that all the "SLS lovers" always say that "Orion is not made to have all his load on the docking port" ( trying to say that an EOR with distributed  launched is not feasible)

 

 

[RCgothic]

If Orion and SLS proofed into non-existence *today*, but the goal of a landing in 2024 and budget remained, NASA could have an HLS style contest to modify a capsule for EOR based on rendezvous with a full upper stage and be no further behind than they already are with the lander contest.

(Orion was designed to have all its load on the docking port. That's how Altair was originally supposed to send it to TLI.)

Edited May 18, 2020 by RCgothic

[ZooNamedGames]

33 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

So it gets a more powerful upper stage.

Now it can send Orion AND not a lander to TLI. Still no crew on the surface.

SLS Orion cannot do the job it was designed for.

 

If it weren't for Vulcan, New Glenn and Falcon Heavy, there would be no lunar landing in 2024 or 2025 or ever.

I think there’s a disconnect here as NASA distinctly considered comanifesting Orion-lander cargo for Artemis. 

29 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

If Orion and SLS proofed into non-existence *today*, but the goal of a landing in 2024 and budget remained, NASA could have an HLS style contest to modify a capsule for EOR based on rendezvous with a full upper stage and be no further behind than they already are with the lander contest.

(Orion was designed to have all its load on the docking port. That's how Altair was originally supposed to send it to TLI.)

Orion was designed is well said since... it isn’t anymore. It’s been a decade since Orion of constellation. It’s changed to update and meet new mission needs- none of which call for EOR or forward loads.

32 minutes ago, Flavio hc16 said:

And then? You need a better SM or to create a tug that you send behind the Orion and dock it mid flight apollo style, something that

A. You can hardly  do, especially with the time restriction ( before 2025)

B. If you can do it, the FH or NG make way more sense both for economics and flexibilities sake.

If you say yes to any of those 2 you are hypocritical considering that all the "SLS lovers" always say that "Orion is not made to have all his load on the docking port" ( trying to say that an EOR with distributed  launched is not feasible)

 

 

Neither New Glenn nor Falcon Heavy can do what SLS can with crew & you’re already complaining that NASA can’t do it (despite NASA having the rockets for Artemis 2 & 3 already!)

34 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Which does nothing to change the fact it is a dead end. Even if all built rockets complete their missions successfuly and on time () there is no future for SLS. It's too expensive to support long term exploration of the Moon. It's too underpowered and expensive for crewed Mars exploration.

And yet it still has a use. Remind me again, aside from NASA- who’s flying on starship? Falcon heavy? It barely flies at all! Both were supposed to change the fate of aerospace but they’re debut has been less than eventful seeing as Atlas V & Delta IV still receive contracts & missions to the very places that SpaceX was intending to compete with.

36 minutes ago, Scotius said:

Which does nothing to change the fact it is a dead end. Even if all built rockets complete their missions successfuly and on time () there is no future for SLS. It's too expensive to support long term exploration of the Moon. It's too underpowered and expensive for crewed Mars exploration.

Also NASA never said they wanted mars exploration- hell not even within the current decade. So talk about jumping the gun. 

Moreover their current architecture has them traveling to LOPG & from there to Mars. Using a crew launcher like SLS. So much for dead end when it’s still in use.

[Flavio hc16]

8 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

 

And yet it still has a use. Remind me again, aside from NASA- who’s flying on starship? Falcon heavy? It barely flies at all! Both were supposed to change the fate of aerospace but they’re debut has been less than eventful seeing as Atlas V & Delta IV still receive contracts & missions to the very places that SpaceX was intending to compete with.

You know well that if the rocket industry wasn't strategic and would follow a proper competition model basically every other launch provider would be dead, and spacex already basically launches in orbit more stuff that the entire rest ot the world combined.

And on the fh migh launch more than you believe in the next couple of years, thanks to artemis and the usaf

 

[mikegarrison]

Just now, Flavio hc16 said:

You know well that if the rocket industry wasn't strategic and would follow a proper competition model basically every other launch provider would be dead, and spacex already basically launches in orbit more stuff that the entire rest ot the world combined.

And on the fh migh launch more than you believe in the next couple of years, thanks to artemis and the usaf

 

If the rocket industry wasn't strategic, there probably wouldn't be a rocket industry.

[tater]

33 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I think there’s a disconnect here as NASA distinctly considered comanifesting Orion-lander cargo for Artemis. 

You are entirely wrong. Even so, what good is the cargo with Orion if the cargo is not crew?

[ZooNamedGames]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

You are entirely wrong. Even so, what good is the cargo with Orion if the cargo is not crew?

https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-three-stage-approach-to-human-class-lunar-landers/
 

I was right.

[tater]

35 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I think there’s a disconnect here as NASA distinctly considered comanifesting Orion-lander cargo for Artemis. 

Orion was designed is well said since... it isn’t anymore. It’s been a decade since Orion of constellation. It’s changed to update and meet new mission needs- none of which call for EOR or forward loads.

No it hasn’t. Orion has not changed at all to do the current missions envisioned or the capsule would be lighter, with more props In the SM.

35 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Neither New Glenn nor Falcon Heavy can do what SLS can with crew & you’re already complaining that NASA can’t do it (despite NASA having the rockets for Artemis 2 & 3 already!)

A2 is a joke, not even Apollo 8.

A3 is supposed to land—minus FH any landing super unlikely. You also forgot Vulcan. Of the 3 only FH actually exists.

35 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

And yet it still has a use. Remind me again, aside from NASA- who’s flying on starship? Falcon heavy? It barely flies at all! Both were supposed to change the fate of aerospace but they’re debut has been less than eventful seeing as Atlas V & Delta IV still receive contracts & missions to the very places that SpaceX was intending to compete with.

FH has flown literally infinitely more than SLS.

35 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Also NASA never said they wanted mars exploration- hell not even within the current decade. So talk about jumping the gun.

They said Mars was the goal during the last admin, and it is literally on all the Artemis docs, “Moon to Mars.”

 

35 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Moreover their current architecture has them traveling to LOPG & from there to Mars. Using a crew launcher like SLS. So much for dead end when it’s still in use.

Gateway is only a thing because SLS/Orion is lousy.

Any Mars architecture that is just SLS never happens. Getting crew to nrho is a waste of time and money, better to build transfer vehicle in LEO.

[sh1pman]

35 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Moreover their current architecture has them traveling to LOPG & from there to Mars. Using a crew launcher like SLS. So much for dead end when it’s still in use.

What’s the point of going to the Gateway in high lunar orbit first and then to Mars? Why not go straight to Mars from LEO? To add more complexity, more potential failure points, spend more props, irradiate the crew for a bit longer? 

[tater]

Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

https://spacenews.com/nasa-studying-three-stage-approach-to-human-class-lunar-landers/
 

I was right.

Nope. A “cargo lander” would go all the way to the surface. Comanifesting 1 stage of a 3 stage lander is nothing without the other 2 stages.

[tater]

2 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

What’s the point of going to the Gateway in high lunar orbit first and then to Mars? Why not go straight to Mars from LEO? To add more complexity, more potential failure points, spend more props, irradiate the crew for a bit longer? 

Because EOR is hard and LOR is easier. For reasons.

[RCgothic]

I'm out of likes, but yes. Co-manifesting 1 stage of a 3 stage lander is not co-manifesting a lander.

[Vanamonde]

A fair number of posts and comments have been removed from this thread due to their sarcastic tone and increasingly personal content. Please keep discussions on this forum polite and avoid insulting fellow forum members over differences of opinion. 

[sevenperforce]

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

No other rocket can do what SLS can do- within 5 years.

SLS cannot do anything within 5 years because SLS does not yet exist.

If SLS exists as designed within 5 years and passes man-rating, then it can do things. 

None of those things it can do are things that other currently-in-dev LVs cannot do, if they exist as designed within 5 years and pass man-rating. 

54 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

And yet it still has a use. Remind me again, aside from NASA- who’s flying on starship? Falcon heavy? It barely flies at all! Both were supposed to change the fate of aerospace but they’re debut has been less than eventful seeing as Atlas V & Delta IV still receive contracts & missions to the very places that SpaceX was intending to compete with.

Delta IV no longer exists; Falcon 9 has obviated it. Delta IV Heavy is dying -- it only has five missions left. Atlas V is being phased out in favor of a lifter designed for partial reuse. Imagine that.

Falcon Heavy doesn't fly very often because Falcon 9 kept getting upgrades. If your contention is "why build a large rocket with low cadence when a smaller rocket can do the trick" then apply that logic to SLS.

59 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Neither New Glenn nor Falcon Heavy can do what SLS can with crew

Which is what, exactly?